SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2064, 5 October 1880, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, Octobeb 4. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston,] The following cases were disposed of yesterday after we went to press:— 'assault and attempt to bob. James McDonald was indicted for having on the 24th June, 1860, feloniously assaulted one Samuel Houston, with intent to rob him. Tho prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Not Guilty." The case for the Crown was that the prisoner bn the night in question attempted to rob the prosecutor by catching him round tho neck and throwing him down. The evidence led for the Crown was that of Austin Kirby, a detective officer, who deposed to the arrest of the prisoner in Otago. Samuel Houston, the prosecutor, deposed to being on the South Town belt on the night mentioned in the indictment about half-past nine. Whilst going along the belt some man came out and assaulted him, throwing prosecutor on the ground. The latter, however, got up and made at him. Afterwards prosecutor chased him, and found him hiding near some timber. He then hit him a kick or two. He was not prepared to swear that the prisoner was the man. Arthur Perkins deposed to being in Colombo street on the night mentioned in tho indictment and seeing the prisoner lying amongst some timber. The prisoner’s face was covered with blood. The prisoner was sober. Detective John Neii deposed to having seen some blood near a pile of timber in Colombo street South. This closed the case for tho Crown. His Honor summed up briefly. The jury returned a verdict of “ Not Guilty,” and the prisoner was discharged. UNLAWFULLY WOUNDING. Samuel Dobbinaon was indicted for having, on 10th July last, unlawfully and maliciously wounded his wife, Emma Jane Dabbinson, with a knife. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “ Not Guilty ” after some demur, he saying that he was in drink at the time and knew nothing of what had occurred. Mr Duncan led evidence in support of tho indictment. The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” Sergeant Wilson gave evidence as to the bad character of the prisoner. His Honor said that such brutes as the prisoner were necessary for public safety to be removed. Had the prisoner been indicted for attempting to do grievous bodily harm, he would have received a much larger sentence than that now recorded, which was three years' penal servitude. LABCENY BY A SERVANT. Archibald Wilson was indicted for having on 31st July last, and whilst in the service of her Majesty the Queen in the Public Works Department of the colony, stolen £2OO, the property of her Majesty. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Spackman, pleaded “Net Guilty,” and stated that having been drugged he had lost the money somewhere. The case for the Crown was that the prisoner, who was entrusted with £2OO to pay the men at the Bealey engaged on the Government works there, had drawn the money from the Bank and appropriated it to his own use. Alfred Duncan Austin, District Engineer, deposed to handing tho prisoner cheques to the amount of £247 Bs, through his clerk, for the puruose of paying the men engaged in the maintenance of the West Coast road near the Bealey. No pay sheets as to the receipt of the money by the workmen had been banded in. 8. R. Bolton, clerk to tho District Engineer, gave evidence as to the prisoner receiving tho cheques, and signing vouchers for them, for payment to men working on the West Coast road. On cross-examination by Mr Spackman, tho witness said that the prisoner had been in tho employ of the Government for five or six years. The prisoner had given a cheque for £lOl odd, and that, with the money in tho hands of the police, covered the money taken. Ho had made restitution of the money unaccounted for by him. After some further evidence, Mr Spackman addressed the jury for the defence. His Honor summed up. The jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty,” with a recommendation to mercy on the ground of previous good character. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labor. THE “ECHO” LIBEL CASH. Mr Loughrey applied on the part of the defendants herein that their recognisances might be discharged, the prosecution having been abandoned on an apology being given and accepted. His Honor directed that tho recognisances of the defendants should be discharged. The Deputy Registrar was directed to see this carried out. NO BILLS. The Grand Jury returned no bill in tbo oases of Regina v Isabella Craig Parry, attempt to commit suicide ; Regina v F. C. Barrington, larceny from a dwelling ; Regina. t Jobn Harband, indecent assault.

During the day the Grand Jury returned true bills in the following cases: —Regina v Haynes, larceny; Regina v Charles Batchelor, receiving stolen goods ; Regina v John Leishman, robbery with violence ; Regina v Edward Addison, indecent assault; Regina vW.H. L. Roe (two cases) forgery and uttering; Regina | w Samuel Dobbinaou, assault with intent to do bodily harm; Regina v John Murphy, forgery; Regina v same, perjury; Regina v Archibald Wilson, larceny as a servant; Regina v James McDonald, assault with intent to rob. The Grand Jury were then discharged without making any presentment. The Court at 6.30 p.m. adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day, when the cases against Murphy, for perjury and forgery, will bo taken. This Day. [Before hij Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The Court resumed at 10 a.m. HOEBB STEALING. W. F. Ryan pleaded “ Guilty” to a charge of horse stealing. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labor. THB CASE OP WILSON. Mr Spackman applied herein that a new trial should take place in the case of Regina v Archibald Wilson, as the jury were not unanimous in their verdict, one of them having given his verdict under a misapprehension. The learned counsel cited authorities to support his point. His Honor said that the jury having separated, the mistake could not be rectified. All the authorities went to show that the mistakes when taking place were rectified at once, before the jury left the box. The juryman who had made the affidavit should have spoken out in the Court manfully, and not allow the Court to go on and sentence the prisoner. Mr Spackman said the juryman expressed his dissent at the time to the jurymen. His Honor said that to allow such a thing as this was most dangerous. The juryman who made the affidavit should have told the foreman of the jury that he dissented. Instead of that he sat by, heard the verdict delivered and sentence given, and now came and made an affidavit that he dissented from the verdict. How did Mr Spackman know that the man had not been tampered with ? Mr Spackman pointed out that the man swore that he told three of the jurymen near him, but that no notice was taken of him. His Honor said that all the authorities showed that the rectification of the mistake must be made at the time. The juiy had separated, and no new trial could be had. Mr Spackman’s application would therefore be refused. POBGEEY. John Murphy was indicted for having, on May 14th, 1880, fraudulently altered and forged a certain sale note of grain, purporting to be signed by one George Hodson, and on a second count for altering the same. Mr Stringer appeared for the prosecution.

Mr Loughrey appeared to defend the prisoner. Mr Stringer having asked the first juror called to stand aside, Mr Loughrey raised the point whether, under the new Jury Act, the Crown could challenge except for cause. His Honor pointed out that in reality the stand aside by the Crown was not a challenge, though it was popularly considered as such. The fact was that it simply meant that the juror should stand aside until the panel was exhausted, when the Crown would have to show cause for challenging. The Commissioners to whom the task of codifying the statutes had been committed had recommended that the law with regard to this point should be made clearer. This was the only alteration made in the Act.

The case then proceeded, Mr Stringer and Mr Loughrey challenging certain jurors. Mr Stringer, having briefly opened the case, proceeded to call evidence as follows ■ George Hodson, who deposed that at the beginning of the present year ho borrowed money from the prisoner, giving him an agricultural lien and bill of sale Subsequently ho entered into negotiations with Murphy for the sale of some grain to him. In the course of the negotiations a sale note was drawn up by which the witness sold the grain to him. When application was made to Murphy for payment it was found that the agreement signed by the prosecutor had been altered by the addition of the words—“ Delivered at Christchurch,” so that the prosecutor would have to pay the costs of carriage, which would reduce the amount payable by the prisoner for the grain. The prosecutor swore distinctly that the words had been added after he had signed the sale note, and that he had no knowledge of the addition. Mr Loughrey cross-examined this witness at some length, but elicited nothing material. In reply to a question from the foreman of the jury the witness said he read the agreement before signing it, and saw there was no date or place of delivery in it, G. L. Mellisb, Resident Magistrate at Christchurch, gave evidence as to a suit in the Court below between the prosecutor and the prisoner, when the note was produced. Witness called prisoner’s attention to the alteration. At first he denied that the alteration had been made, but subsequently stated that he had Hodgson's authority for making the alteration. The prisoner shuffled in answering the questions put to him by witness as to the alteration in the sale note. He stated that this alteration was made as compensation to him for the grain not turning out equal to sample. Robert Stacsfield produced railway receipts signed by prisoner for grain delivered by Hodgson. E. MoKnigbt, chief bailiff of the Resident Magistrate’s Court, gave evidence as to the hearing of a case, Hodgson v Murphy, in that Court, and as to the statements made by the prisoner with respect to the alteration in the sale note.

W. G. Walker, clerk to the Eesident Magistrate’s Court, deposed as to prisoner giving evidence in a case of perjury against Hodgson. Mr Stringer put in the evidence given by the prisoner on the trial of the case, which was read. This closed the ease for the prosecution. Mr Loughrey called evidence for the defence, his Honor declining to allow Mr Loughrey to call evidence as proposed by him, as to the unreliability of the prosecutor, Mr Loughrey having had an opportunity of crossexamining the prosecutor. James Watt deposed to being in the store of the prisoner on April 3rd. Hodgson and prisoner, after having some words, went into the little office in the store. When Hodgson came out he said, “ Sooner than there shall be any trouble about it the grain shall be delivered in Christchurch.” Prisoner came out to the front of the store and told prosecutor that he would enter it in the agreement that the grain should be delivered in Christchurch. Prosecutor made no reply. Cross-examined by Mr Stringer—Michael Murphy was not in the shop till after prosecutor came out. Witness was permitted to resign from the police force here. There were several charges of drunkenness against him, and he was fined for taking “ tip ” whilst in the force. Witness could not say if ho was ever fined for cruelty to a prisoner. He had been doing a little private detective work in the case of Regina v Fowler, for embezzlement. On that occasion he laid a wager as to the conviction of the prisoner. The presiding judge on that occasion spoke very strongly as to his conduct on that occasion. In re-examination by Mr Loughrey, the witness explained that the taking of tip referred to was the receiving 5s a* a reward for finding a dog. Michael Murphy deposed to being in the store of the prisoner on April 3rd. He then said to prosecutor, “Remember the corn is to be delivered in Christchurch, and I shall put •it in the agreement.” Cross-examined by Mr Stringer—Hodgson was outside the store when witness came up. When Hodgson heard what prisoner said ho said something which witness believed to be that it would be all right. When he was last in that court he stood in the dock on a charge of conspiracy. Mr Stringer asked the witness if ho had ever been convicted in the Resident Magistrate’s Court ? The witness hesitated a great deal, and his Honor warned him that if he did not be careful he should commit him. Witness —I don’t know what Mr Stringer is driving at, your Honor. His Honor— But I do, and it is only right you should know. Mr Stringer is trying to see how far twelve jurymen sworn to give their verdict on the evidence, con believe you. The witness then said that he had been fined under the Malicious Injuries to Property Act for breaking a window.

George McMunn deposed to having had a conversation with Hodgson with regard to this business with Hodgson. Mr Loughrey wished to ask what the conversation was.

His Honor ruled that the question was inadmissable. Mr Loughrey should have asked the prosecutor the very words of the alleged conversation, otherwise he could not contradict the evidence of Hodgson. Mr Loughrey then applied to be allowed to call prosecutor as his witness to contradict the statement he had made that no conversation had taken place between himself and McMunn. His Honor declined to allow it. Mr Stringer said that he intended to call Hodgson and his wife as rebutting evidence. Q-eorgs Hodgson, recalled and examined by the Court. On the day the agreement was signed, I did not see Watt about the premises of the prisoner. Ha was not there. Murphy and myself did not have angry words at that time. I never mentioned anything like the words “ Sooner than there shall bo trouble, the grain shall be delivered in Christchurch.” Prisoner did not say “ Remember, I will enter it in the agreement that the grain is to be delivered in Christchurch.” I never saw Michael Murphy there at all, nor was he present at any time whilst prisoner and I were discussing the agreement. I did not see him outside the store. The prisoner did not soy in Michael Murphy’s hearing that the corn was to be delivered in Christchurch and that he should put it in the agreement. My wife was in the office during the whole time the agreement was being signed. She did not stand outside the store at all, nor at the corner of Oxford terrace. She came out with me. On my oath, there was no conversation at all between prisoner and myself to the effect that the place of delivery should be changed. Michael Murphy, McMunn, and Watt gave evidence on the charge of perjury against me in the Court below as ti the alleged conversation respecting change of place of delivery. They never gave evidence on any of the previous cases, either civil or criminal, to this effect. I had a conversation with MePhee with regard to this case about a fortnight ago. He said that it was a pity I should get into trouble over the matter with Murphy and asked if I had delivered all the corn to him. I replied that I had delivered all with the exception of the inferior. I never told MePhee that I had agreed to deliver the corn in Christchurch. I never told MoMunn that Murphy had me iu his power and that I had agreed to deliver the corn in Christchurch. I told McMunn when he came on the Friday that I hud sold the corn to Murphy to be delivered at West Oxford. His Honor allowed MoMunn to be recalled. Witness deposed that on Sunday Hodgson told him that he had made it all right with Murphy ; that he had him in his power, and he had agreed to deliver the grain at Christchurch.

Neil MoPhoe deposed that Hodgson told him at the Oust that he had promised to deliver the grain at Christchurch to get rid of the bailiff out of hia house, and that if he were judge he would give Murphy ten years. He also said that if Murphy were convicted ho should get his expenses. Mary Ann Hodgson deposed that she was in the store of the prisoner on April 3rd. They had met John Murphy outside, about five chains from his store, and after some conversation the three of them—viz, witness, her husband (the prosecutor), and prisoner went into the little office in the store. There was no one present but the three. Watt was not there, nor was Michael Murphy. After they got into the office prisoner drew out an agreement, read it over, and gave it to prosecutor to read. The prosecutor went out to get a shilling stamp, leaving witness in the office. After he came back prosecutor signed the agreement, and they went out. Neither inside nor outside the office was Michael Murphy or Watt to be seen. Witness was never outside the place, but sat on a chair in the office all the time the agreement was being signed. Witness never saw Michael Murphy outside. Prisoner never spoke to witness’ husband about a change in the place of delivery of the grain. Witness was within hearing during the whole interview between the prosecutor and prisoner. Witness was in the office itself where the agreement was drawn up. Nothing could have passed between Murphy and my husband that I could not have heard. The office is a very small one indeed. There was no conversation between the time of leaving the office and getting inte the street. Cross-examined by Mr Loughrey—Witness was outside the Resident Magistrate’s Court when her husband was being tried for perjury. She did not say to MoMunn “ That she would swear anything to get her husband through.” MoMunn was re-called by Mr Loughrey, and said that he heard Mrs Hodgson say that she would soon squash it, and that if she was called on to give evidence she would soon overthrow Murphy. Mr Louhrey addressed the jury for the prisoner. Mr Stringer then addressed the jury for the prosecution. His Honor summed up, and the jury at 2.40 retired to consider their verdict. At 3 p.m. they returned into Court with a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor directed the officers of the Court to retain Michael Murphy and Watt in the Court, A most deliberate conspiracy had been entered into to get the prisoner off. He was going to consider whether he should not order Michael Murphy and Watt to be taken into custody for perjury. Really the case was one of the worst ho had ever had to try. Sergeant Wilson gave evidence as to the character of the prisoner, which he characterised as doubtful. No criminal charge had been brought against him before. His Honor, in sentencing the prisoner, remarked that the case for the defence was a deliberate and false perjury. Ha should punish the prisoner for the very gross case of false defence, one of the worst he had ever listened to.

The prisoner asked that he might call evidence as to character.

William Howe, cornfactor of Christchurch, deposed that he knew the prisoner for some months. The character he bore was not a good one. His Honor said he must consider this as a very gross case. The sentence of the Court was that the prisoner would be sentenced to four years’ penal servitude, Mr Stringer applied under Geo. IV., cap. 64, see. 22, for payment to the prosecutor out of the moneys belonging to the prisoner of the costs of the prosecution. His Honor said he would make the order, as asked for by Mr Stringer, the costs to be paid out of the estate of the prisoner. His Honor said he would leave the matter open as to the prosecution of Michael Murphy and Watt for the public prosecutor to advise whether it should be carried out or not. Mr Stringer, in answer to His Honor said he did not intend to lead any evidence on the perjury case. The prisoner was then acquitted by the jury of the charge, no evidence being offered. A DEFAULTING- JUEOH. Wm. Eennell, who had been fined 40a for nor-attendanco on the previous day, was again called. His Honor said that simply meant that the man would have to pay 40t, plus £5 expenses, unless cause was shown prior to the close of the sittings. The Court then rose at 3.20.